Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I'm not a lawyer, etc, but it looks to me that 1999-@year@ is better
> then just @year@.
+1
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
; I'm not a lawyer, etc, but it looks to me that 1999-@year@ is better
> then just @year@.
> What do you think? :)
>
> Vadim
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:32 AM
&
Subject: cvs commit: xml-cocoon2/documentation/xdocs license.xml
>
> crossley01/10/29 05:31:59
>
> Modified:documentation/xdocs license.xml
> Log:
> Use Ant replacement macro @year@ (was hard-coded "1999-2000")
>
> Revision ChangesPath
&g
crossley01/10/29 05:34:56
Modified:documentation/xdocs Tag: cocoon_20_branch license.xml
Log:
Use Ant replacement macro @year@ (was hard-coded "1999-2000")
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
No revision
1.1.2.3 +1 -1
crossley01/10/29 05:31:59
Modified:documentation/xdocs license.xml
Log:
Use Ant replacement macro @year@ (was hard-coded "1999-2000")
Revision ChangesPath
1.3 +1 -1 xml-cocoon2/documentation/xdocs/license.xml
Index: license.xml
=
